IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 31135 of 2009(J)
1. GOVIND VISHNU A.,
... Petitioner
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,
... Respondent
2. THE VICE-CHANCELLOR,
3. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS,
4. THE PRINCIPAL,
For Petitioner :SRI.MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR
The Hon'ble MR. Justice ANTONY DOMINIC
Dated :07/10/2010
O R D E R
ANTONY DOMINIC, J.
-----------------------------
W.P.(C) No.31135 of 2009
-----------------------------------
Dated this the 7th day of October 2010
J U D G M E N T
Amendment allowed.
Petitioner is a B.Tech student in the 4th respondent
college. In this writ petition what is under challenge is
Ext.P8.
2. While undergoing the course in the 7th semester,
petitioner had attendance shortage of 9 days from the
minimum required 75%. He submitted Ext.P3 application
for condonation enclosing Ext.P4 medical certificate. In
this writ petition, what he initially sought was a direction to
consider his application. The application is now rejected by
Ext.P8 order and the reason stated is that the candidate
had already availed condonation twice during the course
and therefore, no more condonation is permissible.
W.P.(C) No.31135 of 2009
-: 2 :-
3. In my view the reason stated in Ext.P8 is
unassailable for the reason that the provisions of the
Examination Manual framed by the University does not
support the claim made by the petitioner. On the other
hand, the provisions dealing with condonation of shortage
of attendance incorporated in the Examination Manual
framed by the University specifically provide that
condonation of shortage of attendance shall not be granted
for more than one academic year for any course of study or
for shortage exceeding 20 days in an academic year. Thus,
condonation can be claimed by student only once in his
entire course. It is the admitted case of the petitioner that
during the 3rd and 4th semester he has already availed the
benefit of condonation of shortage of attendance.
Therefore, it was impermissible for the petitioner to seek
condonation once again during the course of study.
4. It is the contention of the counsel for the
petitioner that in the absence of any such restriction either
W.P.(C) No.31135 of 2009
-: 3 :-
in the Kerala University Act or Ordinance, it is
impermissible for the respondents to decline condonation
on the ground mentioned in the Examination Manual.
However, as rightly pointed out by the learned Standing
Counsel for the University, the First Ordinance of the
University (Chapter VII therein) authorized the University
to frame rules for the conduct of examination. It is
exercising such powers that the Syndicate has framed the
Examination Manual which provides limitations on the
power of the University to condone the shortage of
attendance. Therefore, by making provision in the
Examination Manual the Syndicate has imposed restrictions
on the extent upto which shortage of attendance can be
condoned. In that view of the matter, on merits, the claim
of the petitioner has to be rejected and I do so.
5. By virtue of the interim order passed by this
Court, petitioner has undergone the course in the 8th
semester and has also appeared the examinations.
W.P.(C) No.31135 of 2009
-: 4 :-
Although I have negatived the claim of the petitioner for
condonation of shortage of attendance for the 7th semester
it is made clear that this Court did not deal with petitioner’s
contention that is entitled to get credit for 8th semester
course undergone and the examinations appeared by him.
These are matters for the petitioner to claim before the
appropriate authority.
Writ petition is disposed of as above.
ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE.
Jvt